The moves afoot followed a decision by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to file a procedural motion on Tuesday night that will likely force a vote early next week that will require the support of 60 members to push the nomination forward.

Since then, conservative bloggers like Erick Erickson at RedState and anti-abortion and religious conservatives have ramped up calls for their supporters to raise objections to Judge Hamilton, citing his rulings in federal court in Indiana on abortion and prayer.

The two Hamilton decisions most often cited by critics are one that struck down the use of Christian prayer by Indiana state lawmakers, and another that struck down a segment of a state law requiring informed consent and a waiting period for women seeking abortions.

In the abortion case, A Woman’s Choice-East Side Women’s Clinic vs. Newman, the judge found unconstitutional a portion of Indiana law requiring women to undergo in-person counseling as part of an informed consent provision. Mr. Hamilton’s ruling was later reversed on appeal, when the Seventh Circuit determined that the law was not unconstitutionally burdensome.

In the religion case, Judge Hamilton said that prayers advancing only the Christian religion violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, prompting conservatives to label him the “anti-Jesus Judge,” and to promote the idea that the judge would instead allow prayers to “Allah.”

The Speaker has also asked whether, for example, a Muslim imam may offer a prayer addressed to “Allah.” The Arabic word “Allah” is used for “God” in Arabic translations of Jewish and Christian scriptures. If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic Allah, the Spanish Dios, the German Gott, the French Dieu, the Swedish Gud, the Greek Theos, the Hebrew Elohim, the Italian Dio, or any other language’s terms in addressing the God who is the focus of the non-sectarian prayers contemplated in Marsh v. Chambers, the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others. If and when the prayer practices in the Indiana House of Representatives ever seem to be advancing Islam, an appropriate party can bring the problem to the attention of this or another court.

That ruling was later invalidated after a separate Supreme Court decision, based on jurisdictional reasons.

During his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary committee last spring, Judge Hamilton said, “I hope this decision is not interpreted at all as limiting anyone’s free exercise of religion nor as favoring any one religion over the other.”

President Obama nominated Mr. Hamilton, who is a chief federal judge, to the appeals court last March, and he has received the American Bar Association‘s highest rating of “well qualified.” A federal judge in Indiana since 1994, Mr. Hamilton once served as counsel to Evan Bayh when he was governor, and is the nephew of Lee Hamilton, the former Congressman and vice chairman of the 9/11 commission.

In June, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines, 12-7, to approve Mr. Hamilton, who has the backing of both Indiana senators, Mr. Bayh, a Democrat, and Richard Lugar, a Republican.

When the Judiciary panel voted, its chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, noted the support of both senators: “As I have said before, I view President Obama’s nomination of Judge Hamilton as something to be commended rather than obstructed and delayed. The president worked with both home state senators, a Republican and a Democrat, to select a highly qualified and respected nominee. Senator Lugar and Senator Bayh are both thoughtful senators. … It should not have been delayed, it should not have been obstructed, it should not have been reported on a party line vote with all Republican senators rejecting the strong endorsement of Senator Lugar.”

That was in June. But Republicans have remained steadfast in their opposition to Mr. Hamilton’s confirmation. At the Federalist Society convention on Thursday morning, Mr. Sessions began his speech by listing his take on the abortion and prayer rulings by Judge Hamilton, saying his record “record demonstrates an adherence to a liberal activist — not liberal; that is not a problem with me, or Democratic lawyers who have been active in Democratic or liberal politics. But the question for our confirmation always is, I think, for the Republican members on our side whether their personal political ideological views will overcome their commitment to the law.”

Noting that Mr. Hamilton was the president’s “symbolic first pick” to the federal bench, Mr. Sessions highlighted the administration’s position that the choice would also set a tone for the future.

Mr. Sessions was among the seven Republicans on the Judiciary panel who voted against the judge’s elevation to the appeals court. During his speech, the Alabama senator suggested that it would be rare for Republicans to filibuster a judicial nominee.

“Sorry, Senator, but Hamilton has a record that shows him to be a highly qualified nominee who will uphold the Constitution and the law to provide equal justice for all. … Moreover, the American Bar Association gave him its highest rating of well-qualified. And, we would be remiss if we didn’t note that local conservatives who actually know him think he’s a stellar choice. Geoffrey Slaughter, President of the Indianapolis chapter of the Federalist Society, praised Hamilton’s nomination observing, ‘I regard Judge Hamilton as an excellent jurist with a first rate intellect . . . His judicial philosophy is well within the mainstream.’ It doesn’t get much better than that.”

It really doesn’t matter who it is; Sessions has shown he’ll continue grinding his personal axe with the Dems over any of their nominees, being still bitter his own obviously right wing activist views got him into trouble with his own nomination. Why do Leahy et. al. even bother trying to placate this good ole boy when he’s shown he has no interest in achieving any form of accord with their party?

Surely the Republicans will not attempt to filibuster this judicial nomination. If they do, and if 60 votes are lacking, the Democrats should ram it through using the same arguments the Republicans advanced when they threatened the nuclear option to ram approval of Bush’s nominees. Since I first started following politics I favored the filibuster because it seemed to afford protection to those in the minority. But in the last 30 years it has been abused to the point that it makes a mockery of the concept of majority rule. Ending the filibuster in votes over judicial nominations would be an important step to eventually eliminating it altogether. So let the Republicans filibuster. And let the Democrats do the country a favor by acting like a political party and playing hardball.

I wish our home-grown fundamentalists would act like proper christians instead of insisting on imposing their old testament beliefs on the rest of us.
Maybe they should be asked whether they are americans or christians first.

I only trust conservatives because they believe in capitalism. Here’s why:

The government isn’t greater than free market capitalism. Our politicians have more control over capitalism than is healthy. They believe repeated government intervention is helpful when it’s actually a hindrance. Think of it like a sprinkler and a garden:

Capitalism is the high-powered sprinkler which feeds the garden. Government is merely the valve which keeps it pointed in the right direction. It’s a necessary device, but it’s not the mechanism spraying out the nutrients which keep the garden green.

When you overuse the valve, and interfere with the natural cycle of the sprinkler, all patches of the garden don’t get fed. Overregulation prevents the sprinkler from completing its rotation, just like excessive government stimulus doesn’t boost an economy. It merely stops free markets from naturally correcting themselves. Excessive use of the reset button on the valve won’t keep the whole garden green, it just artificially grows one patch.

Our system of capitalism is indeed like a sprinkler and a garden, but the garden withers because the people doing the watering are showering themselves with the sprinkler.

Back on subject, however, it always seems as though Republicans are afraid of the judiciary “legislating from the bench” (except, of course, when it benefits conservatives or their values). Mr. Hamilton is considered by colleagues as highly competent, so why all the bluster over his nomination?

As an attorney who has appeared in Judge Hamilton’s court and know both his work and personal reputation, the idea of him being an “activist” of any kind is hilarious. He is a whip smart guy, and unlike many other members of the Southern District of Indiana (including Judge Tinder, who was confirmed 95-0 to the 7th Circuit under Bush) he states his rulings clearly and concisely. That is, he doesn’t issue five reasons for a ruling in hope that one sticks where he thinks there’s only one issue. Occassionally, that has led him being reversed because he forces the issue – but that hardly makes him an activist.
He is a Democrat, and the nephew of long term Congressman Lee Hamilton, but his biggest political backer is Mr. Centrist Evan Bayh. Also, on his relationship to religion, its worth noting he’s the son of a Baptist minister, that nothing he said prevented any form of private prayer, and that the issue was forced by Brian Bosma trying to score political points with conservatives instead of making a reasonable accomodation for non-Christians concerns about turning the State Legislature into a place for overt Christian advocacy.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…